The cup of conservatism overfloweth with bromides about the virtues of small government. “That government is best which governs least” is a pithy quote from Thoreau. People today are probably more familiar with Ronald Reagan’s most dangerous nine words: “I’m from the government and I’m here to help”. There’s the oh-so-cute line about shrinking government to the size where it can be drowned in a bathtub (which, I’ve got to tell you, is a fucking creepy image). Of course, time and again we see that when “conservatives” are given power, they use it to rapidly expand government’s role in the social sphere while cutting the amount of actual good they do in terms of policy.
Hypocrisy aside, the maxims of ‘small government’ are still mostly nonsense. It is not the size of government that is meaningful, it’s the behaviour of government. Institutions that are transparent and made accountable to the people in its constituency can provide excellent services and aid in a variety of sectors. Insofar as a small government is easier for the electorate to monitor than a big one, there is some virtue in reducing size per se. Of course there is a trade-off to be paid in reducing government size – it becomes much less able to do things. A government small enough to drown in a bathtub is too small to react meaningfully to a national emergency or create a sufficient safety net – things it does much better than the private-sector alternative.
There is a balance that must be struck, to be sure. Big government isn’t always the problem, and shrinking it isn’t always the solution. Sometimes large social problems require government-assisted solutions. Case in point:
For the first time in two decades, the number of people living on Calgary streets has dropped, a stunning turnaround for a city – once dubbed “bum heaven” – that has officials crediting an ambitious 10-year strategy to end homelessness. When the 2012 homeless count was conducted on a frigid night last month, 3,190 people were either sleeping on the streets, in shelters or in short-term housing, marking an 11.4-per-cent decline since the last tally in 2008.
Calgary’s foundation has been blessed with government support – $24.4-million from the province and $4.7-million from Ottawa in the current fiscal year, in addition to about $1-million in donations – and has quantifiable success. Governments and agencies in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador have all sought its advice.
This is, in my mind, the ideal model for government intervention. Not rushing in to build what you think people need, but working with agencies who are on the ground in the area of interest and making resources available to help the community solve its own problems. Oftentimes the bad name that government-backed activities get comes from instances where (often federal) agents have arrived on the scene with the attitude of ‘we know best’ rather than one of ‘how can we help’? While homelessness is a provincial jurisdiction (if that – it may be more of a municipal issue), it has broad-reaching ramifications that impact things within the federal portfolio. Partnerships like this are an appropriate answer to the problem – bringing adequate resources to bear in concert with sufficient local knowledge.
It should be noted that this intervention happened under our current “conservative” government, which is not a dig at their conservatism but an attempt to note that they do occasionally do good things. My suspicion is that they’d prefer for these types of things to happen under the radar – homelessness in Calgary is not an issue of national interest and so they are less likely to toe the ideological line. Whatever their actual feelings about the best way to address homelessness, this program has achieved results not despite government intervention, but because of it, at least in part. That government is best which governs best, and while that truism may not be as poetic as Mr. Thoreau’s axiom, the people of Calgary can attest to its accuracy.
Like this article? Follow me on Twitter!
That is so F’ed-up cool. I had never thought of this approach…It’s so….well, obvious. Not even counterintuitive. How’d I miss coming up with this on my own…weird.
And of course as info starts to get shared between on-the-ground organizations in different cities, efficiency will go up. and government monies will be more effectively utilized
“While homelessness is a provincial jurisdiction (if that – it may be more of a municipal issue)”
Strictly speaking, there exists no such thing as the municipal level of government anywhere in the various documents making up our constitution. Municipalities are legally just extensions of the provincial government, and they have only as much power as the province chooses to give them. This is why provinces can download responsibilities or amalgamate municipalities if they so choose (e.g. Ontario under Harris), and the municipalities can’t do a damn thing about it. Unlike some states in the US, we don’t even have any guarantee of elected local government. Though Michigan seems to be ignoring its provisions.
All of which means that if a municipality can’t do something about a problem (i.e. it may not have the resources or expertise), it falls on the provincial government to fix it. Anything the feds do is just a helping hand, which the province is free to reject if it so chooses. Quebec is the most fond of doing this, for a variety of quite arguably legitimate reasons.
Sorry for being pedantic, but sometimes in order to properly appreciate the politics that goes on at the municipal level one must understand the actual dynamic.
I do agree that this is a success story, though the cynic in me notes that they did it in a province that is a CPC stronghold. I would be interested to see the per capita rates for this kind of spending compared between provinces, before and after 2006.
It’s an interesting time in Alberta politics and there is a leader who is more interested in the progressive part of PC. The first thing she did was reinstate funding that had been cut to education while alienating the good ol’ boys who thought their candidate was a lock.
And of course, the current federal government doesn’t have ideological issues with giving money to Calgary. They vote the right way. (No, I’m not being cynical – we saw where the Action Plan money went.)
When I was in Toronto over Christmas I read about a similar program being funded there by the feds as well. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that Vancouver got some cash too for the same initiative. If your theory is that the government is giving money to cities in order to win votes, then I think you might have cracked the code 😛
And of course, the current federal government doesn’t have ideological issues with giving money to Calgary
Indeed. The Prime Minister happens to be my MP.[*]
I have always been of the opinion that the best leaders are the ones that let the people who know what they’re doing just simply do it.
“What do you need from me?” is the best question a leader can ask.
[*]I take no responsibility for electing Mr. Harper, I moved here after the last election.
It’s not very different from what you’ll see in Nordic countries. They tend to be efficient and have policies that work, and their governments also usually work well economically (Iceland excepted).
As said in the post above, the far right will blather about “drowning government” and advocating “the free market” while wasting billions of taxpayer dollars on expanding government and allowing rapist capitalism that destroys. The reality is, government and capitalism work best when the market does what it can, and government does what businesses can’t do – or won’t do. Having government subsidize a few things and run them at a loss can be beneficial to all (e.g. a postal sevice), though the fewer, the better.